Why does scriptural knowledge differ from modern anthropological knowledge?

Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
Thank you. We find that scripture does not describe the anthropological population of the earth the way it is thought of as a modern science and scripture also talks only about India as compared to the whole world.
So, the first point is that scripture primarily gives us spiritual knowledge. So when we approach scripture, the purpose for which we approach scripture is important. So if we consider scripture knowledge to be like a circle.
Now within this circle, there may be some part which agrees with scientific knowledge. There is some part which disagrees with scientific knowledge. And there is a large part that transcends scientific knowledge.
For example, whether there is a spiritual world and whether there is Krishna in the spiritual world, this is something which science can neither prove nor disprove. The very concept of spiritual world is outside the scope of medical science. So when we study scripture, our primary purpose is to focus on this transcendental knowledge which is beyond the scope of empirical method of acquiring knowledge.
So, we shouldn’t, when we are presenting scripture to people in general, we don’t have to position scripture as a competitor of science. They are offering knowledge of different domains. Scripture is offering us a far higher knowledge.
And when we position scripture as a competitor of science, and presently people have more faith in science, at least with respect to material knowledge, so unnecessarily we devalue scripture in their eyes. So firstly, from our point of view, we should not focus inordinately on scripture as a source of material knowledge. We focus on scripture as offering us spiritual knowledge about how to understand our inner world, how to develop, how to become a better person, how to develop our values, how to ultimately love Krishna, and to fulfill the purpose of life.
In the first canto, 8th, 10th chapter, when Krishna is going from Hastinapur to Dwarka, so he goes along a particular path, and then Prabhupada is analysing that path, and then Manpapa says, so now geologists may try to find out the exact path that Krishna took for going there. But it is, the surface of the earth keeps changing, and therefore retracing the path is almost impossible. But as far as we are concerned, we are simply happy that Krishna has reached Dwarka, and now he will continue his pastimes in Dwarka.
So similarly, we have to keep our focus clear. Now still, this does not mean that people will not ask questions. When people ask questions on these issues, we can connect them with those who are experts in those fields.
So for example, if somebody asks us questions about Sanskrit something, we have to connect them with Sanskrit scholars, and devotees are Sanskrit scholars. Now, our movement as of now is only 50 years old, so we don’t necessarily have specialists in all the various fields of knowledge which scripture touches upon. Apart from the spiritual, there are other related fields of knowledge.
So, as far as the anthropology is concerned, one important thing is, scientific knowledge has its validity. But validity does not necessarily mean universality. That means that, the scriptures also talk about people at different levels of, you could say, civilization.
Mahabharata is there, at that time outcasts are there, some people live in the forest, some tribal people are there. So, if through archaeology, certain findings come up, one important point is that, in Indian civilization, people are not buried, they are cremated. So if they are cremated, practically speaking, no fossils remain.
In principle itself, fossils will not remain. Therefore, if we try to reconstruct the history of the past, based on trying to find fossils, and then we say, we have not found fossils, that’s why humans are not there. So, that method is based on certain assumptions, which are valid, but they are not universal.
They are valid in areas where people were buried, but they are not necessarily valid when people are cremated. So like that, sometimes if we just take a confrontationalist approach and say that, you know, all anthropology is wrong, and all this speculative, that is not very persuasive for new people. So we have to, there are many shades in this.
And with people who are specialists, with people who are introduced, it’s best to, if possible, introduce and use specialists in that field, and get them connected. But more important than that, it’s quite often when people have some knowledge about some field, you know, they have to see their attitude. Sometimes those doubts, those questions are there, and those questions are simply attesting whether we are fanatical or we are open-minded.
And then if we don’t become too confrontationalist at that time, and we are gentle and polite, then, you know, there are actually very, very few people, even in the scientific world, who are there in search of pure science, who are purely motivated by the search for knowledge. So that’s why, unless the person is in that category, ultimately everybody is looking for human relationships, ultimately everybody is looking for meaning and fulfillment in life. So if you provide them that, these issues don’t matter so much to them.
There are different devotees who have done research in different ways. So, Human Devolution is one book which Sukarma Prabhu has written. There are some documentaries about how the Vedic civilization is very ancient.
So these are resources which are available, which can be given. But if somebody is too technical and the person is getting into debates, then it’s best to, sometimes, maintaining a right relationship may be more important than establishing the conclusion that we think is right. Because there is a saying that a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.
Arguments sometimes just alienate people. So it’s best that if somebody is getting too much in technicalities, then we let them, just maintain a good relationship with them, connect them with some experts and leave it at that. Later on when, if they face some reversals in life, that time they want some spiritual shelter, we should not have made our confrontation with them into an ego issue which stops them to come from Krishna.
Say, I had said this. You are wrong. I was right.
We shouldn’t make it into that issue. Yes. We keep that as a friendly relationship and we help them come closer to Krishna when they are ready for it.
With that, that’s the question. Thank you.